Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

High definition audio play back on Mac Mini

202.62.80.178
Posted on May 25, 2012 at 04:59:46
hertzx
Audiophile

Posts: 32
Joined: April 12, 2011
 I was looking at the many website that sell HD Tracks. I can see that FLAC is the established standard for this format. FALC seems to be the popular format which people use to store their ripped cds too. Now the questions:

1. Do the MAC computers (mac mini) support playback of FLAC files in its native form ?

2. I have seen some of the playback software’s for the MAC support FLAC playback. But from some conversations with some audiophiles, i was able to understand that the soft wares do some workarounds to play FLAC files since the platform does not support FLAC in its native form. I am not sure what actually meant by this. Can someone shed some light ?

3. What file format people who are into high definition files using the MAC as a platform use commonly?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: High definition audio play back on Mac Mini, posted on May 25, 2012 at 06:15:55
mhardyman
Audiophile

Posts: 278
Location: Somewhere in Vermont
Joined: December 14, 2010
 1. Do the MAC computers (mac mini) support playback of FLAC files in its native form ?

Not out of the box. Apple is a fan of DRM so iTunes won't play FLAC without some workarounds.

2. I have seen some of the playback software's for the MAC support FLAC playback. But from some conversations with some audiophiles, i was able to understand that the soft wares do some workarounds to play FLAC files since the platform does not support FLAC in its native form. I am not sure what actually meant by this. Can someone shed some light ?

PureMusic (I'm a fan) will play back FLAC through iTunes and works very well. PM sits on top of iTunes and uses its own algorithms for playback. It uses iTunes as a front end for house keeping and cataloging.

3. What file format people who are into high definition files using the MAC as a platform use commonly?

Apple Lossless and FLAC. Both are very good and I have a very hard time telling the difference between the two. I use both.

 

RE: High definition audio play back on Mac Mini, posted on May 25, 2012 at 07:12:29
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 1. Do the MAC computers (mac mini) support playback of FLAC files in its native form ?

iTunes does not support flac. My preferred program Pure Music does. Also Audirvana Plus, Decibel, and Fidelia support flac.


3. What file format people who are into high definition files using the MAC as a platform use commonly?

I suggest you use AIFF for best sound quality. Our friend ted_b recommends Wave. You can use the excellent free program XLD for file conversions.
`

 

RE: High definition audio play back on Mac Mini, posted on May 25, 2012 at 08:43:29
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 As others have commented, Apple iTunes will not natively play FLAC files.

However, there are free utilities that will easily convert FLAC files to AIFF or Apple Lossless format which iTunes will support.

Or, there are various programs that work with iTunes and will playback FLAC files while using iTunes as the user interface. I use Pure Music for this with iTunes.


 

RE: High definition audio play back on Mac Mini, posted on May 25, 2012 at 10:40:02
audioengr
Manufacturer

Posts: 6017
Location: Oregon
Joined: April 12, 2001
 I convert all FLAC to .wav or AIFF before I put it in the Mac iTunes library. Sounds better anyway. Use XLD on Mac or dbpoweramp on PC.

Steve N.

 

RE: High definition audio play back on Mac Mini, posted on May 25, 2012 at 12:28:32
MrRiver
Manufacturer

Posts: 36
Joined: January 20, 2012
 There is no advantage to using WAV or AIFF when compared to FLAC (or many other lossless formats). The digital output of all is identical.
--
JRiver Media Center

 

RE: High definition audio play back on Mac Mini, posted on May 25, 2012 at 13:18:53
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Are you trying to start a religious war!!? ;-)

 

The digital output of all is identical., posted on May 25, 2012 at 14:35:56
Dynobot
 I see you are of the Bits-R-Bits camp.

Many MANY people would say you are very wrong.

 

I down load in FLAC but save it as AIFF, although this takes much more space., posted on May 25, 2012 at 20:29:12
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 You can play FLAC with Pure Music, but it is nowhere as good. I will play nothing but Pure Music

Have lots of space to store HD material. 192/24 is clearly better. HDTracks seems to be adding good material daily.

 

Wrong Wrong Wrong, posted on May 26, 2012 at 09:30:53
audioengr
Manufacturer

Posts: 6017
Location: Oregon
Joined: April 12, 2001
 Maybe your system is not resolving enough to hear the difference, but it is significant. AIFF, ALAC and FLAC all have the problem.

If you are at Newport Beach show next week I'll demo this for you.

 

Right Right Right, posted on May 26, 2012 at 09:58:32
Dynobot
 >>>>>Maybe your system is not resolving enough to hear the difference, but it is significant.

I was going to say the same thing....in systems that are not resolving everything sounds the same, ie bits-r-bits.




 

RE: Right Right Right, posted on May 26, 2012 at 15:04:09
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Hearing differences does not prove that a system is "resolving," unless it is proved that the differences relate to the recording and are not artifacts of the system or how it's operated.

One example of this is differences in sound caused by offset errors in a CD rip. If this makes a difference in playback it is proof positive that something is wrong with the DAC and/or transport. That's because there is no difference in sound encoded in the two files. Another example is where adding dither noise at -144 dB below the music makes an audible difference in the result. There is no chance that one can hear noise at this level, but it is possible that the different encoding of the file provokes different distortions in a DAC. Yet another example is a system that is hyped in the treble. It will resolve differences on a rolled off recording that might not be noticeable on a more accurate system. However, this system will be useless for playing most recordings if one's goal is enjoyment and not torture. One can get a similar effect by turning up the volume. One can hear low level information on a recording that would be otherwise missed, such as subway noise, audience noise, etc. This can be carried way beyond the point where there is any purpose in the exercise and the end result may be ringing ears.

This "resolving" phrase is often a stand in for "mine is bigger than yours," especially where the system is expensive.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

in your experience, posted on May 26, 2012 at 15:56:31
Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001
 Not everyone agrees with that. There were people who swore by AIFF on their MACs because it sounded better than WAV -- to them. Then Apple changed over to Intel's chips and many of those AIFF users checked out WAV again. Needless to say some of those users again changed their house of worship.

Big-endian? Little-endian? Processor cowboys? Just being difficult?

Who knows...

 

RE: Right Right Right, posted on May 26, 2012 at 17:45:42
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "This "resolving" phrase is often a stand in for "mine is bigger than yours,""

I cringe when folks attribute anything to "resolution" as without further qualifications it is totally meaningless. Especially egregious is when it is applied to secondary issues like sensitivity to power cords. I've noticed that some think the latter is a good thing as it shows how keenly 'resolving' the device is. Others however rear up on their hind feet and declare that it indicates a defect in design or implementation.

And no one knows just what, if anything it means. Naturally the ideal is no sensitivity to power cords and superb performance, which would of course include adequate power supply rejection including signal decoupling.

But I think your definition is currently the one in general use, a meaningless yet lofty sounding put-down. The only good thing I see about it is that it gets the argument away from the cost of the item.

Resolved Rick.

 

Big Endian and Little Endian, posted on May 26, 2012 at 18:42:22
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 AIFF (normally) has a different order of storing the two eight bit bytes in a 16 bit word than WAV. It was more suited to the older Apple processors. Now that Apple has switched to the Intel architecture the opposite order is preferred, as no extra processing is required to swap bytes about.

This has been a huge PITA. It has been like religious doctrine. Hence the reference to Gulliver's Travels.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

hence it'll never-endian [nt], posted on May 26, 2012 at 20:41:18
Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001
 .

 

RE: Wrong Wrong Wrong, posted on May 26, 2012 at 20:57:26
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 working on my passes now....
Where will you be?
Too much is never enough

 

Well, in my experience with ceteris paribus, of the same recording in FLAC & AIFF would suggest otherwise. nt, posted on May 27, 2012 at 06:38:03
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

 

RE: in your experience, posted on May 27, 2012 at 06:51:25
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 It's all easily explained by mere history.

Who made their name and fortune making car radios decades before making microprocessors? Motorola of course.

Who made their name and fortune making microprocessors and never made a radio in their existence? That would be Intel.

Now whose endianism would YOU trust your music to?

Rick

 

non sequitur, posted on May 27, 2012 at 07:12:09
Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001
 Bose

 

RE: Well, in my experience with ceteris paribus, of the same recording in FLAC & AIFF would suggest otherwise. nt, posted on May 27, 2012 at 07:25:28
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 You have just admitted that your DAC has less than excellent jitter and noise rejection.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Both of my dacs? You have just sought to obscure the question. nt, posted on May 27, 2012 at 07:38:17
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

 

DEC predated Intel with little endian byte order, posted on May 27, 2012 at 07:39:11
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Intel wasn't the first little endian machine with its microprocessors. It was predated in 1970 by DEC with the PDP-11. (IBM was big endian.)

The root of the problem goes back to ancient times and comes from the fact that some languages are written from left to right and others from right to left. Thus in English we write from left to right, but we use Arabic numerals in which powers of ten increase from right to left.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: DEC predated Intel with little endian byte order, posted on May 27, 2012 at 08:13:39
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Cool!

I didn't know that it went back to the DEC/IBM days. I ran into it in the earliest days of Intel and Mot uP's.

Our intransigence goes back at least to the garden of Eden, and even then we third-partied the blame...

Rick

 

RE: Both of my dacs? You have just sought to obscure the question. nt, posted on May 27, 2012 at 08:17:01
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I haven't obscured anything. Both your DACs obscure the music when they incorrectly decode the incoming analog waveform and/or respond to noise on the power line. If you want to get to the root cause of the problem, rather than apply bandaids, you have to address it at the root cause (which is DAC's input circuitry, clock circuitry and power supply).

(This assumes that you are correctly attributing changes in the sound to your system. The cause could be elsewhere.)



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Sorry, I think I will just ignore your advice since I have more prof. advice. nt, posted on May 27, 2012 at 08:26:00
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

 

But even the industry experts do not agree......., posted on May 27, 2012 at 11:35:02
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Professional advise? Which professionals?

This gets back to my earlier point that there are too many variables involved, even the experts don't agree, so it comes down to a religious war with no definitive evidence that one method is better than another.

There are several ways to skin a cat and many of them produce excellent results! ;-)

 

Irrelevant, posted on May 27, 2012 at 11:49:23
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 I think you were joking but....

I would trust the endianness of the company that is still relevant in the microprocessor market.

Motorola didn't have audio in mind with their choice of byte ordering, and it doesn't matter.

Motorola is far from the company we once knew. They pretty much petered out and Motorola Mobility is now owned by Google.

 

RE: Irrelevant, posted on May 27, 2012 at 16:03:59
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "I think you were joking but...."

Ya' think?

But I sense a little pro-Intel bias so let me tell you how it REALLY was sonny... Back in the day, which must have been, what? Early 80's... Mot was way ahead of Intel in uControllers. Intel had power-hog-from-Hell NMOS 8031's while Mot had CMOS 68HC05's. Actually in those dark ages the only other CMOS ones were the RCA 1800's.

Since I was doing portable stuff I went with the Mot. You would have loved the development system, the storage was dual 8" floppies. Ah nostalgia...

Yes Motorola is so gone. Doesn't seem possible considering what a dominant position they had in land-mobile, consumer electronics and semiconductors, but the latter lives on as 'ON' and 'Freescale'. I think Intel is only still around because the IBM entry systems div. used one in the PC. What I can't believe is the dominance of ARM. I could have bought their stock sooo cheap but thought they had a weak future. OK, I'll stop dating myself even though I AM a cheap date...

Rick

 

When they predict right, that is worth a lot., posted on May 27, 2012 at 17:17:08
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 I was told to save programing in FLAC as well as in AIFF and to listen to both. That there would be a difference. There was. FLAC has to be uncompressed, not AIFF.

 

In this case everything was held constant except... nt, posted on May 27, 2012 at 17:19:55
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

 

RE: When they predict right, that is worth a lot., posted on May 27, 2012 at 17:43:23
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 True. FLAC is a lossless compression format. AIFF is uncompressed. In fact, you can un-compress FLAC and make it into an AIFF file.

But which sounds better? Are there any differences at all? You will get arguments both ways.

Since this is the case, I go with what works best for me. And since Apple favors AIFF and Apple Lossless, this is the direction I took, although I do own a handful of FLAC files but not many.

 

Yes, I download in FLAC to get full richness of 192/24. I save in AIFF, posted on May 27, 2012 at 17:57:01
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 I don't give two hoots for what others say. A guy I trust told me to play both and get back. AIFF was far superior because of latency in uncompressing FLAC.

 

RE: Irrelevant, posted on May 27, 2012 at 17:59:08
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 You're not dating yourself. You're dating many of us!

I was around back then but not very much in the Moto camp, even though we did some work on the VME bus later on.

I was doing mostly Z80 work (and CP/M), which was an offshoot of the Intel 8080 chip with all of its instruction set and then some.

The smartest thing Apple ever did was to drop PowerPC as the Moto/IBM processors were falling behind in clock speed but more importantly, they consumed too much power for Apple to compete in the laptop market.

 

RE: Irrelevant, posted on May 27, 2012 at 18:55:57
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Oh man, the Z-80...

Now there's nostalgia on wheels, that's what I learned to program on! Back in the late 70's it was obvious that mixed signal systems were the future and I worried about becoming prematurely obsolete so I tried to find a class locally on designing with micro-processors. Unfortunately neither the university or Jr. college had anything and the gal at the UofO sounded so incredulous that you would have thought I was inquiring about grasshopper husbandry. So I bought a TRS-80 (for $600!) when they first came out, converted it into a development system by using a shared memory scheme tied to it's expansion port and taught myself how to program in assembly. Career-wise it was probably the best money I ever spent. And I liked playing with the 'dancing demon'...

Rick

 

RE: Irrelevant, posted on May 27, 2012 at 21:07:12
Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005
 I was around back then too. It has been a fine ride.

Bill

my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/

 

and we see it over and over and over, posted on May 28, 2012 at 07:06:17
bwb
 .

Can you offer any proof of this?

"because of latency in uncompressing FLAC."

You can say you think it sounds better but you really have no idea why.

As we see again and again.... a guess stated as fact.

/

 

RE: "a guess stated as fact.", posted on May 28, 2012 at 09:39:40
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Ah yes, a nice self-referential example!

Obviously he DOES have an idea and for all you know may have actually done the work to support it. But you prefer to regard your guess as a "fact" sans effort. At least you fit right in...

We could all do a lot better assigning causality if we set our furry heads to it...

Rick

 

you're kidding right?, posted on May 28, 2012 at 10:07:43
bwb
 .


You think there is really any chance at all, a one in a billion chance even, that he has the knowledge and the equipment to figure out that the cause of what he heard was latency as the files were being uncompressed as he played them?

no way

.

 

After the old timers' microprocessors posts recently, ..., posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:25:34
Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005
 I wonder how many of us still have furry heads.

Bill

my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/

 

Why would I bother offering proof? The critics never offer any., posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:43:54
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 They repeat old saws like, "bits are bits" as though it were true. They say "no one can hear beyond 20k Hz" as though the absence of harmonics in reproduced music isn't missed.

I am reporting personal experiences.

 

I don't have the equipment but I have seen the latency figures., posted on May 28, 2012 at 11:47:39
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 But again this doesn't matter to me, I hear the differences. Were you not so biased, so probably would you.

 

RE: you're kidding right?, posted on May 28, 2012 at 12:01:40
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Honestly, I don't think any of us has a handle on the technical details of why certain lossless or uncompressed file types sound different, or sound the same in our systems.

For the most part, it's all just educated speculation.

Isn't it sufficient to simply use what works best in our setup w/o dissecting the choices made by others?



 

Yes, and observed or heard. nt, posted on May 28, 2012 at 12:06:35
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

 

please don't put words in my mouth, posted on May 28, 2012 at 12:22:13
bwb
 .

I never said it didn't sound different.

I'm not biased one way or the other.

I simply said you were attributing an effect to a cause that is completely unproven.

You can say I prefer AIFF over FLAC in the systems where I have compared them, but you can't say why with any certainty.


I farted this morning in bed and about an hour later the sun came up. Using your logic my fart caused the sun to rise.

We've had this argument before and the people who don't understand what I'm saying have either no understanding of the scientific process of determining cause and effect or they are simply pig headed. They say "I adjusted my settings to decrease latency and it sounded better so latency causes things to sound worse." See the problem? No? Let me explain.

Changing those settings causes many other things to change as well as latency so we don't know why it sounds better, just that it does. In fact, hearing it a few milliseconds later can't possibly cause it to sound different as long as everything is delayed by the same amount, so latency in and of itself is not what you are hearing. A simple thought experiment proves this.

If you press play now or wait a second will that change the sound from your system? You introduced a latency of one second so using your logic it should, but of course it won't. Point proven. Latency in and of itself does not cause a change in sound. Changing settings on your computer that affects latency and bunch of other stuff might though.


I don't understand why pointing that out makes people so uptight.
.

.


 

did you even read what I said?, posted on May 28, 2012 at 12:37:46
bwb
 .


I have no problem with his choices. In fact, I said absolutely nothing about his choices.



.

 

LOL !!, posted on May 28, 2012 at 17:13:49
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 "I farted this morning in bed and about an hour later the sun came up. Using your logic my fart caused the sun to rise. "

Hmm, but how do we know for sure that it didn't cause the sun to come up?

 

RE: did you even read what I said?, posted on May 28, 2012 at 17:19:47
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Although I replied after your post, my comments were more or less directed to this forum in general.

There is so much speculation on what is "best" with no solid supporting evidence from the hobbyists or the so-called professionals who hang out here.

 

RE: Wrong Wrong Wrong, posted on May 28, 2012 at 18:06:18
audioengr
Manufacturer

Posts: 6017
Location: Oregon
Joined: April 12, 2001
 Atrium room 239.

 

RE: you're kidding right?, posted on May 28, 2012 at 20:34:00
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Sort of...

But actually I am probably further over to your side than you are. That's why I couldn't resist pointing out that you were doing the same thing.

Rick

 

Digital files are very easy to ABX., posted on May 29, 2012 at 00:58:49
orpheus
Audiophile

Posts: 1040
Location: NYC
Joined: February 27, 2002
 If you use Windows, Foobar has an ABX plugin. If you use OSX, there is a free ABX Tester software in the app store. Try to see if you can identify which file is FLAC and which is wav or aiff. Knowing which is which when you test makes it too easy to expect a difference. It's free, easy, will take less time than reconverting all your files, and it could be fun.

-Aaron.

 

RE: Digital files are very easy to ABX., posted on May 29, 2012 at 02:49:15
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12589
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 Hi Aaron,

I dont think the Foobar abx option will help here. It simply decodes flac to .wav for the abx test PRIOR to the test. You are actually comparing 2 .wav files and completely missing the realtime processing of flac.

I dont think ANYONE is saying that flac and .wav dont produce identical wav files so the abx test will not help you figure out if the extra realtime processing makes a difference on your system.

Cut to razor sounding violins

 

point taken.. but there is a huge difference, posted on May 29, 2012 at 06:56:08
bwb
 .

Yes, I was guessing, but given what I know about the whole process it was an extremely educated guess that he had no real basis for his cause-effect conclusion.

For him to prove what he heard was "because of latency in uncompressing FLAC" would be extremely difficult if not impossible.

For me to conclude correctly that he really had no idea why was very easy for the same reason.

.

 

RE: After the old timers' microprocessors posts recently, ..., posted on May 29, 2012 at 07:42:42
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "I wonder how many of us still have furry heads."

Great out isn't it? Of course beards don't count so we can espouse whatever we want as long as we watch our diet...

R.

 

There are SOME people who believe..., posted on May 29, 2012 at 07:43:47
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "I dont think ANYONE is saying that flac and .wav dont produce identical wav files"

I would like to believe that is the case, but I know of several individuals who believe otherwise. This exists at two levels.

First, the reconstituted WAV file is different from the source WAV file because of different headers and chunks, even though it contains the same PCM samples. (I can confirm this can happen, and you will see reference to it on the FAQ on the FLAC web site. It has to do with the software that is writing and reading the FLAC files, not the underlying FLAC codec.)

Second, there are people who believe that the reconstituted WAV file doesn't sound as good as the original WAV file. Several of these people sell downloads only in WAV format, rather than FLAC, and are on public record that they believe the higher cost downloads provide better audio quality. These people are recording engineers, not computer software engineers, etc., and they may have misdiagnosed differences that they heard due to buggy software, real-time decoding, or whatever. However, it is certain that they have good systems and trained ears, otherwise their recordings wouldn't have consistently excellent sound.


If you want to investigate the influence of headers, etc. on the processing and playback of WAV files, then Soundforge 10c is a good tool, as it supports a format called "raw PCM". This is just the PCM data in the file, with no headers, not even information as to the sample rate, word length, number of channels, byte order, etc. all of which has to be manually entered. If one starts with two WAV files that have different headers but identical PCM samples, one can convert both files to RAW format and the results will be identical. One can then produce two new WAV files that will be identical, including headers. These two files may be different (headers, etc.) from both of the source files, depending on the software used to write them. Other editors probably provide a similar capability for RAW files. Note: if you play or convert a RAW file with incorrect settings you had better make sure your volume control is turned down low otherwise your ears, speakers and amplifier may be toast.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

That's why your posts are better suited to HydrogenAudio., posted on May 29, 2012 at 08:58:04
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 I'm wondering - are there any listening tests involved in development of your media player?

It doesn't sound like it, when it's put up against top competition in comparison LISTENING tests - and it also doesn't sound like it from your posts, here and elsewhere.

Why is it so difficult to understand that 2 files being identical when they are stored on a hard drive after conversion, DOESN NOT equal the same two files SOUNDING identical, when one of them is decoded real-time?

 

RE: I don't have the equipment but I have seen the latency figures., posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:46:58
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "I hear the differences. Were you not so biased, so probably would you."

Don't you understand that you are hearing a defect in your system? Perhaps bwb's system lacks this defect.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: High definition audio play back on Mac Mini, posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:27:54
DKG
Audiophile

Posts: 911
Location: Miami
Joined: April 5, 2003
 I use Vox to play FLAC files on my Mac, its free and will convert FLAC files to numerous other formats.

 

RE: When they predict right, that is worth a lot., posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:29:25
DKG
Audiophile

Posts: 911
Location: Miami
Joined: April 5, 2003
 I convert the FLAC files to apple lossless to load on my iPhone. I play the FLAC's on my Imac with Vox

 

Maybe that's my problem, posted on May 30, 2012 at 09:57:20
Beetlemania
Audiophile

Posts: 1217
Location: Utah
Joined: November 1, 2003
 Most computer-side tweaks are inaudible to me. USB cable upgrade makes a "useful" but not dramatic difference. Different music players (Foobar, JRMC, JPlay, etc.) make only a small difference on a subset on songs. Stuff like FLAC v WAV and playing files off of the SSD are inaudible (my ears/system).

My system has well-reviewed components and retails for north of $10K (oh, and it sounds superb). How much more do I have to spend before I can have a "resolved" system?

 

Worse than that, Column-major vs row-major, posted on May 31, 2012 at 15:58:56
DrChaos
Audiophile

Posts: 2063
Location: San Diego
Joined: July 13, 2009
 Even earlier, and at least as big if not worse a problem,

column-major vs row-major storage of two-dimensional numerical arrays.

Fortran chose column-major. It was an arbitrary choice, but after that happened, it is inexcusable for anybody to choose the OTHER way.

 

I don't agree with you nor do several professionals, posted on June 1, 2012 at 05:40:44
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 But believe what you want.

 

Name one of them, posted on June 1, 2012 at 06:10:23
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Name one of these "professionals" who does not believe that it's OK for the sound of a DAC to depend on characteristics of a particular transport other than sending the correct bits.

As far as I know, all DAC designers agree that it's desirable for DACs to be transparent and that bits should just be bits. To try and achieve this goal they design in costly components such as complex asynchronous protocols or phase locked loops. Some designers are honest and admit that their product still fails to achieve the goal of making bits just bits, others claim they have achieved this (but many doubt their advertising). A defect that you don't know how to fix is still a defect.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Worse than that, Column-major vs row-major, posted on June 1, 2012 at 08:31:24
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Worse than that, why can't we even agree to start the damn things at 0? Or 1?

Since this conundrum goes at least back to not having the centuries start with 0 or the years starting with 100 I see no hope. I think my goal for my remaining years should be to come up with something that will be used way into the future and make it confusing so that folks will think of me, albeit not fondly...

Rick

 

RE: Worse than that, Column-major vs row-major, posted on June 1, 2012 at 14:48:59
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 As I recall, the various ways to calculate the new millennium provided excuses for several parties. :-)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

We seem to be talking past each other., posted on June 4, 2012 at 06:07:24
Norm
Reviewer

Posts: 31024
Joined: September 6, 2000
 I'm saying that those whose opinions and expertise I respect think the processor should not be engaged in uncompressing data to play it. They also do not believe in hardware upsampling especially that without integer multiplication. Having heard what they do, I put my money on what I hear.

All I can say is that once you've heard real 192/24, you don't like anything else, except perhaps for real DSD and certainly vinyl.

 

RE: We seem to be talking past each other., posted on June 4, 2012 at 13:39:25
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 These differences depend on the particular equipment and setup, which leaves lots of room for disagreement among "experts" and "professionals" without even raising the question of "whose ox is being gored".

I agree with your comments about real 192 kHz recordings.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Why would I bother offering proof? The critics never offer any., posted on June 9, 2012 at 05:50:34
andy evans
Audiophile

Posts: 4378
Joined: October 20, 2000
 I agree with Norm. I detect a slight - very slight - preference for AIFF over FLAC. That's repeated A-B comparisons. Whether I could do that double blind I just don't know. I can see an argument either way.

 

Page processed in 0.051 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]